A Veto
from a Rogue State, What else?By Arjan
El Fassed, political scientist and human rights activist and affiliated
with the Palestine Right to Return Coalition (PRRC) and The Electronic
Intifada.

The United States used its
veto power to kill a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have supported
the creation of an international observer force to protect Palestinian
civilians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. By the terms of the
draft, which received nine votes in favour and one against (United States),
with four abstentions (France, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom), the Council
would have requested the Secretary-General to consult the parties -- Israel
and the Palestinians -- on immediate steps to implement the resolution.

The question of the enforcement of
international humanitarian law in the occupied territories cannot be viewed
in isolation from developments in the enforcement of international humanitarian
law in relation to the former Yugoslavia. The Security Council approach
to the former Yugoslavia emerged in six stages.

In the first, Security Council resolution
757 (1992) reaffirmed the need "for effective protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms including those of minorities". SCR 764 (1994),
the second stage, marked a significant shift in that it insisted that "persons
who commit or order the commission of grave breaches of the Conventions
are individually responsible in respect to such breaches". This was followed
by SCR 771 (1992), which called upon states and other bodies to submit
"substantiated information" to the Secretary-General, who would report
to the Council "recommending additional measures that might be appropriate".
In the fourth stage, SCR 780 (1992)established a fact-finding commission
to draw up an internationally accepted record of atrocities and their perpetrators.

In a logical consequence SCR 808
(1992) created an international tribunal to prosecute those violating international
humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia. Finally, SCR 827 (1993) described
certain violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia
and determined that "this situation" constitutes a threat to international
peace and security which triggered the Council's mandatory authority under
Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

The contrast with the situation in
former Yugoslavia is striking. In both instances the SCR's affirmed that
international humanitarian law was applicable, but in the case of Israel,
the crucial step of affirming the principle of individual penal responsibility
has not been taken. Instead, when addressing the issue of responsibility,
the exclusive focus has been on shortcomings in Israel's behaviour without
this translating into the actions which might render accountable those
individuals who have been responsible for such shortcomings.

In 1990, SCR 672 called upon Israel
"to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under
the Fourth Geneva Convention" and welcomed the decision of the Secretary-General
to send a mission to the region, asking him to submit a report on his "findings
and conclusions". In some respects the high point in this process came
with SCR 681 (1990) which called on the High Contracting Parties to "ensure
Israel's respect for the Convention".

This week's US-vetoed resolution
would reiterate "the need for protection of all civilians as expressed
in its resolutions 1265 (1999) and 1296 (2000)" and "the need for Israel,
the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and
its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949". Moreover,
the resolution would have expressed "full support for the work of the Fact-Finding
Committee established at Sharm El-Sheikh, and would have called "upon all
parties to cooperate fully with it".

It is clear that the United States
has prevented the United Nations from following through with its duties
in maintaining international peace and security. The US veto was the first
veto for the United States since March 1997, when Washington twice vetoed
a resolution preventing Israel to continue its colonisation policy through
building settlements in occupied East-Jerusalem, an illegal action according
to international law. The vetoes supported Israel's construction of a new
colony on top of the Abu Ghneim mountain and opposed Israeli payment of
compensation for the 1996 Qana massacre. Basically, the US sent the Israeli
government the clear message that it can do whatever it wishes, including
destroying the world's hopes for Middle East peace.

It was the 73rd cast by the US representative
in the 55-year history of the United Nations. Until this US veto, only
nine vetoes had been cast by any of the Permanent Members of the Security
Council in the past decade. On December 18 last year, the US threatened
to veto another draft on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but this was
not needed because supporters of the text could rally only eight of the
nine votes required to adopt a resolution.

To date, the United States has used
its veto 73 times. The vast majority of US vetoes were casted in support
of Israel and apartheid-South Africa and defending its own actions in Central
America. Clearly, the US regards itself as exempt from international norms
and standards such as the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and other documents describing basic
human rights and humanitarian standards. As such, rendering the United
Nations "utterly ineffective" has become routine procedure. Obviously,
for a "rogue state" international law and human rightsdo not mean anything.